Revising W3C Process Community Group Teleconference -- 24 Feb 2015

Process 2016 tasks

<inserted> scribe: jeff

jeff: What in the world might we do in Process2016?
... anything worthwhile?
... I don't know anything important enough to pass muster; to make it worthwhile to do a rev of the process; except for possibly CGs.
... but I can't get my head around what we would actually say in the process about something which is not part of the process

Mike: We might introduce some new process to characterize how some CGs exist in an orbit around WGs
... and what might IP commitment transitions look like

All: But really it is Chaals who knows most about what should go into the process.

Steve: What are the 4-5 items you want to see in the Process2015 draft for the AC
... , chaals?

Chaals: (1) Resigning from WG, (2) knowing if a WG has closed
... (3) significant proposal for TAG
... as an AC rep I will object to current draft
... (4) Understand a WG decision (e.g. what the Chairs announce)

Steve: I believe that the text for solving the default channel has reached consensus

Chaals: Consensus, but no resolution.
... I don't like the proposal of a default approach. Singer liked my approach.

Steve: Singer was supportive that the announcement said where it was going.

Jeff: Suggest not having lots of open issues.

Steve: Resigning: we can solve with simple text which proposed how one resigns.
... resign before Process2015 goes out.
... Knowing if a WG has closed should go off to Process2016

Chaals: I understand that things not resolved will (unfortunately) go into 2016.

Steve: TAG objection (two things from same organization) would not be in AC cover letter; Chaals will just object

Chaals: Defining a WG decision is for Process2016

Members and IEs Resigning from WGs

Mike: Isn't resign from a WG when you click the button to resign?

Chaals: Doesn't say so in the process.
... should be easy to add
... I will happily do so.

Mike: Making formal what is apparently the case

<steve> ... +1

<timeless> scribe: timeless

<chaals> issue-151?

<trackbot> issue-151 -- How to resign from a working group -- raised

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/community/w3process/track/issues/151

<chaals> Proposed:

<chaals> "On written notification from an AC rep or invited expert, or equivalent action to formally leave the WG (e.g. through an automated join/leave system), the member's representatives will be deemed to have resigned from the relevant Group, effective immediately".

chaals: you should be able to write the team contact
... saying you are resigning effective immediately

Mike: why not mention the form

chaals: if you tie the process to a thing that might go away
... things could break

SteveZ: i think the team may establish additional details of how you do that
... maybe it should just say notify the team?
... "person resigns by written notification to the team"

chaals: i'll add "to the team" to the proposed text

jeff: i don't care how many ways you can resign
... you say "on written notification from an AC rep or IE"
... it doesn't say that the IE will have resigned

chaals: noted

<Zakim> timeless, you wanted to ask if a Member wants a rep but not all Reps for a Member to resign...

<chaals> Proposed:

<chaals> "On written notification from an AC rep or invited expert to the Team, or equivalent action to formally leave the WG (e.g. through an automated join/leave system), the member's representatives or invited expert will be deemed to have resigned from the relevant Group, effective immediately".

chaals: resignation only applies to Member Entities, not representatives

SteveZ: if a member resigns, then all reps of the WG are deemed to have resigned

chaals: members can remove all reps but retain membership

mike: from the patent purpose, that matters

SteveZ: that's why we want to fix this

jeff: if it's possible for a Member to be in a WG even if it has no Reps
... then i'm concerned about "equivalent actions to leave the working group"
... it could be interpreted that going from X reps to 0 reps would be leaving

chaals: then you should instruct systems to ...

jeff: the proposed resolution
... doesn't tie leaving the WG to the system
... it ties any action that's equivalent, and that isn't defined
... if the resolution ties to the existing system only, i think we're ok

SteveZ: why do we need the equivalent action clause?
... seems like the easiest way to fix this is to remove the equivalent action clause

chaals: it's pretty trivial to have a button saying "i'm taking all members out and leaving the WG"

mike: one employee in WG, employee leaves company, you're still in WG w/ no reps

jeff: company later could say "we had one person in WG, he left company, therefore we had 0 people in WG, by his leaving company, we took equivalent action"

mike: i agree
... i'm happy having the process document saying exactly what happens in WBS
... not worrying about corner case of deadline + WBS is down
... we've gone 20 years w/o worrying about it

chaals: i've been impacted which is why i'm worried

mike: let's not have a vague action

jeff: "written notification to the team"

mike: "electronic means written"

SteveZ: we don't need to put that into the process
... "using the form is accepted as written notification"

jeff: that works for me

chaals: seems backwards, but i probably would not object

SteveZ: a lot of places accept electronic statements as "written notification"

chaals: you'd be defining "the form"?

SteveZ: we leave a lot of things to implementation

chaals: i've lost the proposal

SteveZ: drop the "or equivalent

<chaals> Proposed:

<chaals> "On written notification from an AC rep or invited expert, the member's representatives or invited expert will be deemed to have resigned from the relevant Group, effective immediately".

<chaals> Proposed:

<chaals> "On written notification from an AC rep or invited expert, or equivalent action to formally leave the WG (e.g. through an automated join/leave system), the member and their representatives will be deemed to have resigned from the relevant Group".

jeff: "effective immediately" is probably redundant, you could probably shorten it a bit
... you just put equivalent action back in

chaals: copy-paste errors

<chaals> Proposed:

<chaals> "On written notification from an AC rep or invited expert the member and their representatives or invited expert will be deemed to have resigned from the relevant Group".

timeless: wondering if their reps or _the_ IE ...

jeff: makes sense

[ Chaals reads a version w/ "the" as suggested by timeless ]

SteveZ: any objections?

[ None ]

RESOLUTION: Add "On written notification from an AC rep or invited expert the member and their representatives or the invited expert will be deemed to have resigned from the relevant Group".

Noted changes to be addressed in Process2015 prior to sending out for AC review

SteveZ: default channel
... edited rec
... that one
... those are the only changes

chaals: steve when you get back on line, can you send a formal resolution for the default one?

SteveZ: i'll issue a response to the CfC

ISSUE-152 Process2014 Regresses Editorial Revision of RECs

issue-152?

<trackbot> issue-152 -- Process2014 Regresses Editorial Revision of RECs -- open

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/community/w3process/track/issues/152

SteveZ: are we trying to solve a case that has never occurred in practice?
... i conjectured that we've never done an Edited REC for solely Editorial changes

chaals: i suggest you're wrong
... I believe RDFa is doing that

SteveZ: i discussed w/ jeff -- tantek's proposal
... and noted your (chaals's) slippery slope warning
... on circle/oval

mike: i remember the discussion in tokyo that changed my mind
... the PAG example that was resolved by changing the name of something
... one would think that changing a name would be editorial
... but we have an example where it isn't
... i've changed my mind on this
... we have to tell fantasai that it's deliberate
... there's no way to define an editorial change that doesn't have patent implication

SteveZ: i can draft text for a note to go in
... that was the one issue that the AB asked be explicitly noted

Plan of Action

SteveZ: i believe we have marching orders for the document going to AC
... we have updates on default channels + resigning
... and a note on not resolved for Edited REC
... those are the only proposed changes going into 2015
... the other issues are separate and likely to be 2016 issues
... i'll draft a note this weekend or before for a letter to the AC for a 4 week review of the proposed 2015 document

chaals: i'd request that you draft some explicit explanation of the Edited REC issue

SteveZ: yes

jeff: i think in your letter you should include the entire schedule going forward
... 4 week review, review comments to TF in April timeframe
... TF expects to turn around comments in April
... TF expects to get out final in time for AC meeting

SteveZ: that's my understanding, yes
... i agree it should be in there

jeff: in the March 16 AB call
... i'm thinking to put on the agenda the question
... of whether there are sufficiently big further changes that we want to have a Process 2016 focus
... steve, if i have such an Agendum, would you like to join the AB meeting

SteveZ: yeah

jeff: question for everyone, i could tee up that item
... or if someone else wants to take it up

SteveZ: i sent 2 lists to the AB+public-xxx prior to the Tokyo AB meeting
... (1) the list of still open issues (potentially 2016)
... (2) list of things i didn't think we part of the process
... slightly less than a week before the Tokyo meeting
... we didn't have time to discuss that list
... but it could be helpful for March

jeff: sure
... i'm not trying to collate the potential issues
... trying to argue that to make the investment, there has to be something big
... CGs look promising, but we'd have to figure out what to say

SteveZ: the list is a set of topics that are potentially big issues
... certainly the "is new charter a new WG" is a big issue

jeff: a bunch of issues that PSIG have told us to stay clear of them
... i don't want to have Process 2016 just to go around in circles that won't conclude
... specifically don't want those

SteveZ: i think there are things worth doing

jeff: if chaals / mike have framing for CG thing

Conluding

SteveZ: thanks everyone
... i'll get the email out by Sunday

[ Adjourned ]

trackbot, end meeting

- DRAFT -

Revising W3C Process Community Group Teleconference

24 Feb 2015

Attendees

Contents

Process 2016 tasks

Members and IEs Resigning from WGs

Noted changes to be addressed in Process2015 prior to sending out for AC review

ISSUE-152 Process2014 Regresses Editorial Revision of RECs

Plan of Action

Conluding

Summary of Action Items

Scribe.perl diagnostic output